Journal ethics and misconduct

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

1 Scope and guiding standards

This policy covers all submissions and published content, including articles in thematic issues, commissioned contributions, review articles, scholarly source editions and translations, book reviews and reports. It applies during submission, assessment and publication, and after publication.
The journal follows the guidance and flowcharts of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, jointly developed by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. 

2 Editorial independence and responsibility

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for publication decisions and the integrity of the editorial process. Assessment considers the quality of the argument, methodological soundness, originality, significance of the findings and relevance to the journal’s scope. An author’s origin, gender, citizenship, religious affiliation, ecclesiastical position, institutional affiliation or political beliefs must not provide grounds for discrimination.
The publisher, the institution responsible for the journal, sponsors and advertisers must not dictate acceptance or rejection decisions. Editors protect the confidentiality of submissions, document decisions and prevent manipulation of peer review and citations. Acceptance must not be made conditional on citing the journal, publisher, editor or reviewer without a scholarly justification.

3 Research integrity and authors’ responsibilities

Authors report methods, source material, findings and limitations in sufficient detail to allow their argument to be assessed. They distinguish source-based findings from reconstructions, hypotheses and interpretations. Fabricating or falsifying data, evidence, quotations, references, translations, illustrations or accounts of research undertaken is prohibited.
In biblical, theological and historical research, authors must identify the editions, translations, manuscripts and archival resources used, acknowledge borrowed material and disclose reliance on another scholar’s transcription or interpretation. Material known through a secondary study must not be presented as having been examined directly. Authors verify the existence and content of cited publications and promptly report significant errors they discover, including after publication.

4 Authorship and contributorship

Authorship requires a substantial intellectual contribution to the conception of the work, the acquisition or analysis of material, or the interpretation of findings; participation in drafting or substantive revision; approval of the final version; and acceptance of responsibility for one’s contribution and for cooperating in the investigation of concerns about the work as a whole. All these conditions must be met.
Funding alone, a supervisory position, language editing or technical assistance does not qualify a person for authorship. Such assistance is acknowledged with the consent of the individuals named. Omitting qualifying authors (ghost authorship) and including individuals who do not meet the criteria (guest or honorary authorship) are prohibited.
For work with multiple authors, each person’s contribution must be described, in narrative form or using the CRediT taxonomy. The corresponding author ensures agreement on the author list and approval of the submission by all co-authors. Authorship changes require an explanation and written agreement from everyone concerned, including individuals being added or removed. Disputes that the authors cannot resolve are referred to the appropriate institutions; the journal may suspend processing of the manuscript.

5 Originality and plagiarism prevention

A submitted article must present original work and must not be under consideration elsewhere. Plagiarism, undisclosed duplicate publication, unacknowledged reuse of an author’s own text and artificial fragmentation of findings to increase publication output are prohibited. Translating an already published article into another language does not in itself make it a new original publication.
Authors disclose related publications and any earlier dissemination of the material, including in a thesis, preprint or conference proceedings. The editors assess the overlap and the substantive new contribution. Before peer review, every submission is screened using Crossref Similarity Check, powered by iThenticate. Reports require human assessment: a similarity percentage alone establishes neither plagiarism nor its absence. Substantiated concerns are handled under section 13.

6 Conflicts of interest and funding

Authors, reviewers and editors disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest, including non-financial interests: supervisory relationships, close personal relationships, joint projects, competition and institutional commitments that could affect impartiality. An author’s disclosure of a conflict does not in itself require rejection.
Authors identify funding sources, grant numbers, other support and the funder’s role in the research, manuscript preparation and decision to submit. A conflict of interest statement, including a declaration of no conflicts where appropriate, is published with the article. Reviewers and editors disclose conflicts before accepting an assignment or promptly upon becoming aware of them, and withdraw from assessment where independence is compromised. Research collaboration within the preceding three years requires particular scrutiny; the passage of that period does not automatically remove a conflict.

7 Peer review and publication decisions

Following initial editorial assessment, research articles, including review articles and scholarly source studies, are sent to at least two independent external reviewers from outside the author’s academic unit. The journal uses double-anonymised peer review: authors and reviewers are not informed of one another’s identities through the review process. The editors remove identifying information and verify reviewers’ expertise and identities. Reviewer suggestions made by authors are not binding.
Assessment also covers supplementary material relevant to the conclusions. Authors receive anonymised comments and an opportunity to respond. Where assessments differ, the editors may seek an additional opinion. A reasoned decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editor appointed where a conflict exists; reviews inform editorial judgement rather than operate as an automatic vote.
Book reviews, reports and informational notices undergo editorial assessment, which must be clearly identified. Submissions by editors, advisory board members and guest editors undergo the normal peer review process, but the author takes no part in reviewer selection or the decision and has no access to confidential records. If independence cannot be secured within the editorial team, the publisher appoints a qualified external editor. The same standards apply to thematic issues and commissioned content.

8 Reviewers’ responsibilities and confidentiality

Reviewers accept assignments only within their competence and for completion within an agreed timeframe. They provide substantive, reasoned and constructive assessments, avoid personal remarks and report suspected misconduct. Recommendations for additional references must serve a scholarly purpose.
Manuscripts, attachments and correspondence remain confidential after the review has ended. Reviewers must not use information for personal advantage, contact authors about the review outside the editorial process or involve other people without prior editorial permission. Approved co-reviewers are subject to the same requirements. Editors share materials only with authorised persons to the extent necessary for assessment, publication services or investigation of concerns.

9 Research materials and verifiability

Authors retain the documentation needed to verify their findings for the period required by their institution or funder, respecting third-party rights. On a justified request, they provide the editors with relevant data, transcriptions, code, compilations or methodological records, including after publication. Deposit in trustworthy repositories and the use of persistent identifiers are encouraged.
Articles include a statement on the availability of research materials: a link, access conditions or a specific explanation of restrictions, such as participant protection, copyright or archival regulations. Where no separate dataset was generated, a statement to that effect and identifiable references to the sources used are sufficient. Authors are not required to disclose protected material publicly or obtain permissions incompatible with obligations to its custodians.

10 Ethical oversight of research

Research involving human participants, including interviews, surveys and observations in religious communities, must protect dignity, voluntary participation, privacy and confidentiality. Authors identify approval from the appropriate ethics committee or authority where required, or explain the basis for exemption. Consent to participate in research does not replace separate consent to publish information that could identify a participant.
Particular care is required for minors, vulnerable persons and participants in pastoral, educational or employment relationships of dependence. Confidential material and information obtained through pastoral relationships must not be treated as freely available research data. The use of archives, manuscripts, reproductions and correspondence must respect access rules, relevant permissions and the protection of individuals. The editors may request documentation demonstrating compliance with ethical requirements.

11 Intellectual property and open access

Authors are responsible for properly identifying quotations, translations and borrowed material and for obtaining permission where required to publish third-party content. Sources of illustrations, reproductions and data must be acknowledged; material excluded from the article’s licence must be identified separately.
Polonia Sacra provides immediate, free access to its publications under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0). Authors retain copyright and grant the publisher permission for first publication; they may deposit the published version in a repository with an acknowledgement of its first publication and its DOI, where assigned. No fees are charged for submission or acceptance for publication. Applicable licensing terms and any exclusions are clearly identified on the website and with the publication.
Licence: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

12 Use of artificial intelligence

AI tools cannot be authors or co-authors. Authors remain fully responsible for their text, sources, findings and rights to the material used. Supportive uses of AI, such as language editing, translation, searching, transcription or analysis, are permitted subject to human supervision and independent verification. Generated data, quotations, textual witnesses, references or images must not be presented as authentic evidence. AI does not replace the author’s own research contribution and argument.
Generative AI use must be disclosed on submission and in a statement published before the references, identifying the tool, model or version where available, period of use, purpose, extent and verification undertaken. Research applications are additionally described in the methods section; significant settings and prompts are documented sufficiently to permit assessment of the method. Routine spelling, punctuation and formatting checks that do not generate content require no separate declaration. Generated material studied as a research object must be clearly labelled.
Authors must not submit confidential or personal data, or third-party materials, to AI tools without authorisation and appropriate safeguards. Reviewers and editors must not enter manuscripts, excerpts, confidential reviews or correspondence into generative AI tools. Their assessments and decisions remain independent. Supportive AI use that does not require confidential data must be disclosed to the editorial office. An AI detector’s output is not sufficient on its own to establish a breach. The similarity screening described in section 5 is subject to data protection safeguards and human assessment.

13 Reporting and investigating suspected misconduct

Anyone may raise a substantiated concern about a submission or published work by identifying the article, the issue and the available evidence. Anonymous reports are considered if they contain information that can be investigated. The editors protect the reporter’s identity as far as is consistent with a fair investigation and applicable rules; good-faith reporting must not result in retaliation.
The editorial office records the concern, preserves documentation, appoints a person without a conflict of interest and conducts a preliminary assessment. It then informs the authors of the substance of the concerns and allows them to respond and provide documentation. Where necessary, it consults independent experts, the publisher, the relevant research institution or funder. Editorial investigation does not replace institutional disciplinary procedures.
Action is proportionate to the findings and may include requests for clarification, correction, suspension of processing, rejection, an expression of concern or retraction. Suspicion alone does not establish misconduct. Withdrawal of a submission by its author does not automatically end an ethics investigation. The outcome and reasons are communicated to the parties concerned to the extent permitted by confidentiality.

14 Complaints and appeals

Complaints about the process and reports of misconduct should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief using the details on the journal’s Contact page. An appeal against a publication decision should identify a specific error in assessment, a procedural defect or significant new information. Appeals should be submitted within 30 calendar days of the decision; this limit does not restrict the reporting of ethical concerns or errors in published work.
Complaints concerning the Editor-in-Chief should be addressed to the Director of the University Press of the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow at wydawnictwo@upjp2.edu.pl. The publisher ensures that the complaint is examined independently of its subject. No one adjudicates a complaint about their own conduct; an appeal receives an assessment by a person who did not participate in the original decision.
The editorial office or publisher acknowledges receipt within 7 working days and provides a reasoned response within 30 calendar days, or a progress report explaining the delay and specifying the date of the next update. An appeal does not guarantee acceptance. The final position is communicated in writing; new evidence may justify reopening the case.

15 Corrections and retractions

The journal issues a correction when an error can be remedied without undermining the work’s overall reliability. Serious unresolved concerns may warrant an expression of concern, whose status is updated when the investigation concludes. Retraction is considered, for example, where findings are unreliable, substantial plagiarism or unjustified duplicate publication has occurred, research was unethical or peer review was manipulated. Disagreement over scholarly interpretation alone does not justify retraction.
The responsible, impartial editor makes an evidence-based decision after giving the authors an opportunity to respond. Author agreement is not a prerequisite for a necessary correction of the scholarly record. The notice unambiguously identifies the article and states the date, reasons and party issuing the decision. It is freely accessible and linked to and from the article; the editors update metadata and inform relevant indexing services.
Retracted articles normally remain accessible and are clearly marked in every version. They must not be silently replaced with altered files. Content removal is exceptional and requires a specific justification, such as a legal obligation or serious privacy risk; bibliographic details and an explanatory notice are retained to the extent legally permissible.

16 Post-publication discussion

Readers may submit substantive comments, critical responses and correction requests through the editorial contact. The editors assess their relevance, scholarly character and evidential basis; contributions presenting substantial new findings undergo peer review. Authors of the work discussed are offered an opportunity to respond, but failure to respond does not prevent publication of justified criticism. Published comments and responses are linked to the work concerned. Personal attacks, threats and disclosure of protected data are prohibited.

17 Publisher responsibilities and policy updates

The publisher supports editorial independence, data protection, investigation records, publication of corrections and enduring access to the scholarly record. It provides arrangements for record retention and content preservation in accordance with the published archiving policy. Access to investigation records is restricted to authorised persons.
The journal website provides current information on the publisher, editorial team, peer review, funding, fees, licensing and archiving. Any advertisements are identified and separated from scholarly content, and journal promotion must not mislead or promise publication. The editors periodically review this policy, publish its effective date and amendment dates, and maintain consistency between its Polish and English versions. New formal requirements are not applied retrospectively to the detriment of authors; concerns about the integrity of earlier publications may be assessed regardless of when they are raised.